memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Sarr Theln carrier
redundancy and naming convention Isn't this the same as ? And if not, shouldn't both pages be renamed to and respectively to comply with other STO ship class pages? - Bell'Orso (talk) 01:11, November 15, 2015 (UTC) :I'd actually suggest a merge -- theyre both the same class, but one is a further modification of that class. :This is akin to the being a frigate in SFC3 and a destroyer in Armada -- same hull, but fitted with a different number of guns and such and thus a different kind of ship -- but described in the same article because they share the overall classification. -- Captain MKB 02:06, November 15, 2015 (UTC) ::Yeah, that's what I was originally suggesting as well. But it is interesting that you bring up the Saber class. Have you noticed that it appeared in a recent SotL calendar with the same basic layout of hull components, but in a much more rounded form? However, I don't think that particular variant was ever called anything but simply "Saber class" in that appearance. Unlike, say, the Galaxy X class, which is also basically nothing but a variant on the base Galaxy class. ::Anyway, what I'm getting at is this: The carrier and warship do look noticeably different from what I can tell from the images I've seen of both. The "official" STO wiki ssems have separate pages for mob and playable versions of ships as a matter of principle, whether they actually differ in any way or not, and in this case we should adopt that for these ships. They are clearly not the same hull and their designations do differ (even if only slightly). Yes, it's unusual that two different designs that are in service at the same time should also (at least partly) share a name, but just because I can't think of a precendence for that in Human naval tradition doesn't mean the Breen look at this issue the same way. - Bell'Orso (talk) 02:47, November 15, 2015 (UTC) :What i'd really like to re-iterate and have you take away from this is that starship classes can share a common name but have different modifications, as well as moderately different appearances. :the Miranda class has a TOS variant in Legacy, the 'normal' one we are used to seeing and also the roll-bar lacking variants from TNG, in a few different flavors -- but we don't have Miranda class (transport) or Miranda class (survey ship) articles -- they're all Miranda class. if you look through SFC1, you'll find a dozen more that share an outboard appearance and are referred to as different types of ships. So this is a precedent from both canon and a similar video game as STO -- the game has the ships structured in tiers, but the article stays merged because of the overall class designation. This isn't a discussion of naming convention in-universe, because in both canon and other published sources we have this quality going across several cultures. We keep the articles together according to the names used in sources, the appearance of the class mentioned in sources, and we also have variants such as the Soyuz or Galaxy X which would seem to be part of the base class but have been given a unique name for no apparent reason, even though the Lantree and Saratoga 31911 would seem to deserve a separate class name but dont receive one. :this is both for the sake of avoiding confusion and honoring the original sources, Bell-Orso -- the STO tier system sometimes uses unique class names, and sometimes it introduces variant classes under the same name but with different modifications. Keeping the tiered ships together under the same name fits the precedent set previously by both SFC and canon and the ST Encyclopedia -- Captain MKB 03:32, November 15, 2015 (UTC) ::Well then, we might also have to look at Jem'Hadar battleship and Jem'Hadar dreadnought carrier. Or is there any particular reason why those two are separate? This is all very confusing to me. - Bell'Orso (talk) 03:47, November 16, 2015 (UTC) :::The answer for why STO decided to use the same name for these two ships is unclear, but they are clearly completely different, both in design and equipments, being the only distinction between the two names the use of Sarr Theln for one ship class and Sarr Theln Carrier for the other. Because of this same detail regarding other STO ship class pages, the Sarr Theln Carrier is described as a variant of the Sarr Theln warship, but as they are completely different, putting them on the same page would not be possible. - Syk99 (talk) 04:07, November 15, 2015 (UTC) ::I think there are other examples of the merge being possible, as stated above. Some of the STO variants can be pretty wild, but the naming puts them in the same ship family. I think the shows a similar situation that was reconciled into one article defining a couple of versions sharing a name - Captain MKB 16:09, November 15, 2015 (UTC)